the Middle East is not a dream someone else is having
Sometimes I think I shouldn't turn the television on because I will just get angry. Israel is escalating her gangster war on her neighbors, apparently because being kidnapped by Hamas is a little like the Comanches in an unreconstructed western from the bad old days "having their way with our white women," the proverbial fate worse than death. One kidnapped and one or two Israeli soldiers killed is not nothing. But how does it justify terrorizing civilians and killing 10 or 20 or fifty or more? A few minutes ago Daryn Kagan on CNN was talking to A Mr Chamoun of Corpus Christi Texas, whose wife Caroline is presently stranded in Beirut with their kids. At one point Chamoun said he was pretty sure they were ok because they were staying in a safe neighborhood. I know what he meant by that, because Beirut is fairly segregated, or at least it was when I was growing up. He means they're staying in a Christian neighborhood, and apparently Israel isn't shelling the nicer parts of town.
(I grew up in Beirut, from 1969-74. The building where we stayed when I was k-2nd grade had some Europeans and Americans living there, so I'm guessing we were in a predominantly Christian neighborhood. Later when my grandmother got sick we moved to a less fancy place, the Hotel Caracas, for my 3rd and 4th grade years. It wasn't actually a hotel, it was just called that, and apart from one Asian family I think most of the people who lived there were Muslims. I don't think the two buildings were even that far from each other.)
Chamoun is a Christian Lebanese name, as in Danny and Camille Shamoun. At one point Kagan said to Chamoun "I wonder if it's worse for you over here, worrying about them and not knowing what's happening." Afterwards Kagan thanked Mr Chamoun and switched to a segment of playing audio clips of people who called in to answer the posed question "should the US intervene." Every caller but one whose clip was played said no, that we should stay out of Israel's business. Israel's business. The one person who said yes identified herself as an Arab-American and had a pronounced accent.
"I wonder if it's worse for you over here, worrying about them and not knowing what's happening."
(I grew up in Beirut, from 1969-74. The building where we stayed when I was k-2nd grade had some Europeans and Americans living there, so I'm guessing we were in a predominantly Christian neighborhood. Later when my grandmother got sick we moved to a less fancy place, the Hotel Caracas, for my 3rd and 4th grade years. It wasn't actually a hotel, it was just called that, and apart from one Asian family I think most of the people who lived there were Muslims. I don't think the two buildings were even that far from each other.)
Chamoun is a Christian Lebanese name, as in Danny and Camille Shamoun. At one point Kagan said to Chamoun "I wonder if it's worse for you over here, worrying about them and not knowing what's happening." Afterwards Kagan thanked Mr Chamoun and switched to a segment of playing audio clips of people who called in to answer the posed question "should the US intervene." Every caller but one whose clip was played said no, that we should stay out of Israel's business. Israel's business. The one person who said yes identified herself as an Arab-American and had a pronounced accent.
"I wonder if it's worse for you over here, worrying about them and not knowing what's happening."
posted by Jonathan Versen at 10:05 PM
5 Comments:
I agree there's nothing proportionate about the Israeli response in terms of immediate physical and emotional damage, but I suspect Israelis would justify it strategically and in utilitarian terms with reference to the long term and to the "psychology" of their adversaries. Do you think they have any leg to stand on there?
Frankly, no. Keep in mind in the 1990s when the Oslo accords were afoot and Rabin was prime minister we had a period of many years were there was little to no hostility between the Palistineans and Israel. People forget this so easily.
When you make your enemy desparate he will be more warlike, not less, in his response to you. This isn't a question of the "intrinsic character" of the Arabs or the Jews or anybody else.
Olmert does not want peace, anymore than George Bush junior wants to see a stable and democratic Iraq. My understanding is the current offensive is in fact very controversial within Israel and a substantial portion of the population wants less military confrontation, not more.
Some Israelis really want peace, and others do not. And yes, I recognize you can say the same thing about the Arab world.
"Don't really want peace" seems counter productive to me. I think the core of your point must be "don't have peace as their highest priority." But notice that nobody ever does--except somebody under torture at the moment they utterly capitulate ala Winston's "Do it to Julia!" in 1984. So while I can believe there's good reason to view Olmert's recent decisions reflecting poorly on him, I don't see them implying of themselves that he and his cadre are open to no compromises re: Palestinian independence and land. In fact, I imagine it would take some handwaving to argue only that he's less open than his predecessors. e.g. I heard Rabin or somebody did negotiate an exchange of prisoners, and yet I could easily be persuaded that any Israeli PM would see kidnapped soldiers as different politically, and since Olmert's highest priority like any PM is to avoid a no confidence vote, I can easily imagine such a difference being decisive. That said, I know hardly anything about Olmert and viewed Rabin's assassination as a catastrophe since the day I learned of it.
israel is not a woman. a woman is not waging war on lebanon. war is not female. take responsibility for your gender and be more careful with your use of language. what exactly are you saying when you call israel a woman?
Anonymous, all countries are traditionally referred to as feminine, whether at peace or at war.
As far as the political implications of using traditional grammar go, I reject the idea that I have to fear using traditional grammar lest I be accused of various biases. I will use "he" or "she", sometimes randomly, when I don't know the gender, but am unwilling to use the clumsy "they" when its obvious in context that the person being referred to is a single person.
You say, take responsibility for your gender and be more careful with your use of language. Fair enough. Well, I say to you take responsibility for the conclusions you jump to if you decide to make various assumptions about how I regard women, or Israel, or national identity based on my preference for traditional grammar. Did you look at other posts of mine to help you make your assessment?
Anyway anonymous, thanks for visiting. I hope my explanation makes sense to you even if you disagree with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home